Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: DiogenesLamp
Well that is just factually incorrect.

Well it is absolutely factually correct. Far more correct than your claim is.

The Northern side began the war with their leader proclaiming that he had no authority to change the Constitutionally protected practice of slavery. Presumably if he was "preserving the Union", he was requiring obedience to Constitutional law, which is the very essence of the Union.

And the Southern side linked their cause inextricably to the preservation and advancement of slavery. They launched their war to further that aim.

He was therefore requiring obedience to the pro-slavery clause in the Constitution as much as the rest of the document.

True. And he never violated that oath to defend even that part of the Constitution.

Indeed, his own Emancipation Proclamation excepted every area under Union control, just as constitutional law would have required for every Constitutional jurisdiction.

Complete nonsense. Freeing the slaves in areas in rebellion was well within Lincoln's powers as granted by the Confiscation Acts. The constitutionality of which was upheld by the Supreme Court in their 1862 Prize Cases decision.

38 posted on 02/25/2019 9:41:45 AM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]


To: DoodleDawg
And the Southern side linked their cause inextricably to the preservation and advancement of slavery.

As I have repeatedly pointed out to you, the Southern reasons for seeking independence are irrelevant to Northern reasons for invading the South.

Since only the reasons for invading matter, the cause of the war clearly hinges on those. Had the North chosen to stay in it's own states, there would have been no war.

The reasons they decided to go South, are the cause of the war.

Complete nonsense. Freeing the slaves in areas in rebellion was well within Lincoln's powers as granted by the Confiscation Acts.

Confiscation Acts cannot repeal Article IV, Section 2. People keep lying to themselves when they claim that something specifically forbidden by the Constitution can be overridden by a vote of Congress.

It cannot. Honest people will recognize this was a case of refusing to follow constitutional law because they didn't like that particular law.

40 posted on 02/25/2019 10:26:46 AM PST by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies ]

To: DoodleDawg

“The constitutionality of which was upheld by the Supreme Court in their 1862 Prize Cases decision.”

Just to be clear, are you saying the Union Supreme Court during the war voted to approve of the Union war?

You should add: and after the war the Union Supreme Court voted to say both the Union war and the Union Supreme Court was right all along.

And you should add: and later the Union Supreme Court voted to approve killing babies regardless of race, color, or creed.

You must be so proud.


57 posted on 02/25/2019 4:38:32 PM PST by jeffersondem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson